Date: Apr 4, 2013 3:01 PM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On Apr 4, 8:22 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 4 Apr., 19:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Apr 4, 6:43 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > On 4 Apr., 18:21, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 4, 5:19 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 4 Apr., 16:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > There is no need to say what numbers belong to mathematics - in
> > > > > mathematics. There is no need to say what paths belong to the Binary
> > > > > Tree

>
> > > > However, you keep talking about two types of paths,
>
> > > Not at all. I talk about sets of nodes that are in the Binary Tree.
>
> > Indeed, and some of these subsets of nodes are paths and
> > some are not.

>
> In the Binary Tree there is no stop at any path.
>

> > You talk about subsets of nodes with a last node
> > and subsets of nodes without a last node.  However,
> > you refuse outright to indicate what makes a subset of nodes
> > a path  (certainly not all subsets of nodes are paths).

>
> All nodes that belong to a finite path, belong to an infinite path
> too.


Since you refuse to say what makes a subset of nodes a path
you cannot claim that a path without a last node exists.